United States. Congress. House. Committee on Inter.

U.S. interests in South Asia : hearings before the Subcommittees on International Economic Policy and Trade and Asia and the Pacific of the Committee on International Relations, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourth Congress, first and second session, December 5, 1995 and April 18, 1996 online

. (page 1 of 19)
Online LibraryUnited States. Congress. House. Committee on InterU.S. interests in South Asia : hearings before the Subcommittees on International Economic Policy and Trade and Asia and the Pacific of the Committee on International Relations, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourth Congress, first and second session, December 5, 1995 and April 18, 1996 → online text (page 1 of 19)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


U.S. INTERESTS IN SOUTH ASIA

Y 4. IN 8/16: AS 4/7

U.S. Interests in South Asia* Heari...

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEES ON
INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC POLICY AND TRADE

AND
ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

COMMITTEE ON

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS

FIRST AND SECOND SESSIONS



DECEMBER 5, 1995 AND APRIL 18, 1996



Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations




? l .



U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
36-492 CC WASHINGTON : 1997

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-054011-9






U.S. INTERESTS IN SOUTH ASIA
Y 4. IN 8/16: AS 4/7

U.S. Interests in South Asia* Heari...

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEES ON
INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC POLICY AND TRADE

AND
ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

COMMITTEE ON

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS

FIRST AND SECOND SESSIONS



DECEMBER 5, 1995 AND APRIL 18, 1996



Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations







U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
36-492 CC WASHINGTON : 1997

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-054011-9



COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York, Chairman



WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa

TOBY ROTH, Wisconsin

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois

DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey

DAN BURTON, Indiana

JAN MEYERS, Kansas

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California

PETER T. KING, New York

JAY KIM, California

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas

DAVID FUNDERBURK, North Carolina

STEVEN J. CHABOT, Ohio

MARSHALL "MARK" SANFORD, South

Carolina
MATT SALMON, Arizona
AMO HOUGHTON, New York
TOM CAMPBELL, California

Richard J. Garon, Chief of Staff
MICHAEL H. Van DUSEN, Democratic Chief of Staff



LEE H. HAMILTON, Indiana

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut

TOM LANTOS, California

ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York

HARRY JOHNSTON, Florida

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa
MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
CYNTHIA A. MCKINNEY, Georgia
ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida
ALBERT RUSSELL WYNN, Maryland
JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
VICTOR O. FRAZER, Virgin Islands (Ind.)
CHARLIE ROSE, North Carolina
PAT DANNER, Missouri



(II)



Subcommittee on International Economic Policy and Trade

TOBY ROTH, Wisconsin, Chairman
JAN MEYERS, Kansas SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas MICHAEL R. McNULTY, New York

STEVEN J. CHABOT, Ohio ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey

DANA ROHRABACHER, California HARRY JOHNSTON, Florida

DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina PAT DANNER, Missouri

TOM CAMPBELL, California

EDMUND B. Rice, Subcommittee Staff Director

JOHN SCHEIBEL, Democratic Professional Staff Member

CHRISTOPHER HANKIN, Professional Staff Member

ALEXANDER Q. Schmitz, Staff Associate



Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific

DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska, Chairman

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California HOWARD L. BERMAN, California

DANA ROHRABACHER, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa Samoa

JAY KIM, California SHERROD BROWN, Ohio

MARSHALL "MARK" SANFORD, South ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey

Carolina SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut

DAN BURTON, Indiana GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois

MICHAEL P. ENNIS, Subcommittee Staff Director

RICHARD KESSLER, Democratic Professional Staff Member

DAN Martz, Professional Staff Member

Jon J. Peterson, Staff Associate



(HI)



CONTENTS



PART 1— U.S. SECURITY INTERESTS IN SOUTH ASIA
Wednesday, December 5, 1995

WITNESSES



Page

The Honorable Robin L. Raphel, Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian

Affairs, U.S. Department of State 8

Mr. Bruce O. Riedel, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Near Eastern

and South Asian Affairs, U.S. Department of Defense 11

Dr. Robert G. Wirsing, Professor — Department of Government and Inter-
national Studies, University of South Carolina 27

Mr. Michael Krepon, President, The Henry L. Stimson Center 29

Dr. George K. Tanham, Consultant and Advisory Trustee, the RAND Corpora-
tion 31

APPENDIX



Prepared statements:

Hon. Howard L. Berman, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Asia and
the Pacific 79

Hon. Edward R. Royce, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California and Vice Chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and
the Pacific 81

Hon. Dan Burton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Indi-
ana 83

Hon. Robin L. Raphel 85

Mr. Bruce O. Riedel 91

Dr. Robert G. Wirsing 102

Mr. Michael Krepon 115

Additional material submitted for the record:

Question submitted for the record to Hon. Robin L. Raphel by Hon.
Robert E. Andrews, a Representative in Congress from the State of
New Jersey, and response thereto 120

Questions submitted for the record to Hon. Robin L. Raphel by Hon.

Gary L. Ackerman, and responses thereto 121

Newspaper article submitted for the record by Hon. Sherrod Brown,
a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio (Marcus W.
Brauchli, "India and China Take Far-Different Paths," Wall Street
Journal, November 20, 1995) 127

letter from Mr. George Perkovich, Director — Secure World Program, W.
Alton Jones Foundation to Hon. Doug Bereuter, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Nebraska and Chairman of the Subcommit-
tee on Asia and the Pacific (dated December 5, 1995) 128

Editorial submitted for the record by Dr. George K. Tanham (George
Tanham, "The Costs of the Indo-Pakistan Conflict — a View from Amer-
ica," Indian Defence Review, Oct.-Dec. 1995: 27-29) 133

(IV)



PART 2— ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES AND PITFALLS IN SOUTH ASIA
Thursday, April 18, 1996

WITNESSES



Page

The Honorable Raymod E. Vickery, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Commerce

for Trade Development, U.S. Department of Commerce 44

Mr. Jack Shaw, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Hughes Network

Systems; and Co-Chairman, U.S. -India Commercial Alliance 57

Mr. R. Michael Gadbaw, Vice President and Senior Council, General Electric

Company; and Chairman, India Interest Group 61

Mr. Vinod Gupta, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, American Business

Information, Inc. — Omaha, Nebraska 65

Mr. Sreedhar Menon, Board Member, U.S. -India Business Council 68



APPENDIX



Prepared statements:

Hon. Gary Ackerman, a Representative in Congress from the State of

New York 136

Hon. Howard L. Berman, a Representative in Congress from the State

of California and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Asia and

the Pacific 138

Hon. Raymond E. Vickery, Jr 140

Mr. Jack Shaw 152

Mr. R. Michael Gadbaw 164

Mr. Vinod Gupta 177

Additional material submitted for the record:

Statement submitted for the record in lieu of appearance by Mr. Tarun

Das, Director General, Confederation of Indian Industry 181



PART 1— U.S. SECURITY INTERESTS IN SOUTH

ASIA



WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 1995,

House of Representatives,
Committee on International Relations,

Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:24 p.m. in room
2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC, Hon. Doug
Bereuter, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding.

Mr. Bereuter. Today we will hold the first of two hearings on
a large and diverse region of South Asia, which contains nearly
one-fourth the world's population and has significant impact on a
number of important U.S. interests.

Our hearing today will address U.S. security interests in the re-
gion. Next week, on December 12, we will hold a hearing on U.S.
trade and investment interests in South Asia, which are fast grow-
ing in importance.

These two hearings most certainly will not exhaust the range of
U.S. interests and concerns, but their subjects represent two of our
highest priorities.

It is a matter of satisfaction to be able to counterpose today's
hearing, with its inevitable sobering overturns, with a subsequent
hearing on the commendable and even revolutionary economic pol-
icy reforms that many of the South Asian countries have adopted
during the past 4 or 5 years.

Despite a number of positive developments in recent years, we
cannot afford to ignore the ongoing serious threats to peace and
stability in South Asia, as represented by unresolved territorial dis-
putes, active regional dissidence movements — sometimes aided and
abetted by neighboring countries — and the continuing threat of nu-
clear and missile proliferation.

Unfortunately, the source of current and potential conflicts in
South Asia has deep historic roots. This makes them all the harder
to address and resolve.

Due to the high stakes involved for U.S. interests, I expect that
today's witnesses will focus their remarks primarily on the long-
standing India-Pakistan rivalry.

Although both countries have generally promoted their respective
positions and their high degree of awareness of the consequences
of miscalculation, they continue to engage in fire fights high on the
Siachen Glacier. Both have the capability to produce nuclear weap-
ons and the weapons systems that can deliver them.

(l)



In the past, U.S. officials have described South Asia as a region
in which there was probably the greatest risk of deployment of
weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons.

One of today's witnesses, Assistant Secretary of State for South
Asian Affairs, Robin Raphel, spoke in similar terms during our first
overview hearing this past February.

A few weeks ago, the conferees on the foreign operations appro-
priations bill adopted an amendment offered by Senator Hank
Brown that would partially relax the Pressler Amendment ban on
most aid and military and technology transfer to Pakistan.

This would allow the restoration of economic aid and important
export-related programs, such as OPIC and investment insurance,
and facilitate renewed military-to-military contact.

The legislation would also allow the one-time release of some
$368,000,000 in military hardware to Pakistan that had been con-
tracted before October, 1990, when President Bush decided that he
would no longer make a required certification under the Pressler
Amendment that Pakistan did not possess nuclear weapons.

The legislative changes to the Pressler Amendment would explic-
itly forbid the release of some 28 F-16 aircraft, but would allow the
Administration to sell them to a third party buyer and reimburse
Pakistan with the proceeds. I might say I think we started that
process here in the authorizing committee.

The foreign operations appropriations bill currently is the subject
of a House/Senate deadlock over an unrelated issue, but it is ex-
pected eventually that these changes will become law.

I am convinced that the arms release will have no significant im-
pact on the existing military balance in favor of India. Moreover,
it is important in my mind to get beyond the Pressler deadlock and
put ourselves in a position to positively influence defense policy-
making in both India and Pakistan.

The Indian Government's concerns are understandable from its
perspective. I would point out, however, that not only did the Ad-
ministration strongly support the changes, but it is nearly the
unanimous conclusion of our non-official policy community that the
Pressler Amendment in its current form has outlived its useful-
ness.

I am hopeful that the Indian Government will interpret our ac-
tion in the proper spirit and engage with us in a serious discussion,
oppressing regional security issues.

A longstanding Kashmir dispute is at the root of the Indian-Paki-
stan rivalry and figures in three sub-continental conflicts.

The upsurge of anti-government violence in India's Jamu and
Kashmir state since early 1990 is perhaps the most troubling ex-
ample of the kinds of problems arising in a region with a highly
diverse population, as well as a longstanding history of conquest,
colonialism and changing political boundaries.

Regional dissidence, whether ethnic, linguistic or religious-based,
is by no means confined to India, but affects every South Asian
country to some extent.

On November 14, this subcommittee held a hearing on the situa-
tion in Sri Lanka, where a hot war rages between the government
and ethnic Tamil guerilla forces.



The Kashmir problem has the greatest potential for sparking a
possibly devastating conflict, however, because it involves disputed
territory.

During the past couple of years, the United States appears to
have had limited success, at best, in its efforts to prevent ongoing
movement toward the deployment of nuclear weapons and ballistic
missiles.

At the moment, considerable ambiguity surrounds the nuclear
programs and capabilities of both India and Pakistan, as well as
their missile programs.

With regard to the latter, we are particularly concerned about
M-ll missiles that Pakistan reportedly has obtained from China,
and about India's indigenous Prithvi missile that it appears on the
verge of deploying.

I look forward to hearing the testimony of both the Administra-
tion and the private witnesses on this matter. In my charge of the
witnesses, I asked them generally to indicate and explain the na-
ture of our security concerns, priorities and policies and evaluate
the success of our efforts to date to reduce the potential for conflict
and to contain nuclear and missile proliferation.

I realize that an open hearing format imposes severe restraints
on you, especially for the Administration, but I am hopeful that you
will be able to be sufficiently candid to facilitate our informed pub-
lic debate in this country.

I am pleased that we have been able to establish two strong pan-
els. The first, the Administration, will be represented by Assistant
Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs, the Honorable Robin
Raphel, who I have already mentioned, and Deputy Assistant Sec-
retary of Defense for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs, Mr.
Bruce Riedel.

Mr. Riedel previously served as National Intelligence Office for
the Near East and South Asia and as director of Near East and
South Asian Affairs on the NSC staff. Both are well placed to ad-
dress regional security issues.

I will introduce the second panel at a later time. I would now
turn to the ranking member, Mr. Berman, the distinguished gen-
tleman from California, for such comments as he might care to
make.

Mr. Berman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman for recognizing me and
for holding the hearing. I would like to have my whole statement
included in the record, if I can.

Mr. Bereuter. Without objection.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Berman appears in the appen-
dix.]

Mr. Berman. Because we have a number of good witnesses, I will
cut it short. There is some dispute, although most people think
there is no immediate threat of a major confrontation between
India and Pakistan, but the persistence of tension clearly increases
the chance that a relatively minor dispute might escalate seriously.

So, this is an important subject. I would be interested in hearing,
in some fashion either the testimony or in response to specific
questions, a few of the Administration's particular views on China's
role in either furthering or hindering the progress toward nuclear



non-proliferation and non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruc-
tion.

I would be interested in the Administration's thoughts on terror-
ism. We have recently seen the horrible attack on the Egyptian em-
bassy in Pakistan and earlier attacks on Americans and others as
well there.

I am curious to know how the Administration views recent Ira-
nian activity in South Asia and what are the implications of that.
Narcotics I think is an important issue.

The turmoil in Afghanistan. The weak governments in Central
Asia create a tremendous opportunity for drug trafficking.

Let me just differ a little bit or maybe not differ from my chair-
man's comments; it very well could be that the Pressler Amend-
ment needed some changes.

I am not yet persuaded that selling relatively sophisticated weap-
onry to Pakistan will do much more than trigger a greater esca-
lation of an arms race in that part of the world.

To the extent that you care to discuss it, since we were not mem-
bers of the appropriations conference that really heard and dis-
cussed this issue in more detail, the Administration's thoughts on
the position that it took and why it took it, I think would be of in-
terest to me.

I do think the Administration deserves to be commended very
strongly for its efforts to improve relationships with both countries
in the region.

The most recent discussion has been with respect to Pakistan,
but the Administration has worked long and hard to improve our
relationship with India, which has not always been as strong as I
think it is becoming.

Most noteworthy was the visit by the First Lady last winter. I
think dealing with sources of frictions in the U.S. -Indian relation-
ship are important and I congratulate you for working on that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Bereuter. Thank you.

Are there other members who wish to be heard or to submit a
statement?

Mr. Royce. Yes, Mr. Chairman, if I could.

Mr. Bereuter. The gentleman from California, Mr. Royce.

Mr. Royce. In regard to the Indian subcontinent, the strategic
delivery capability represented by the 30 Chinese M-ll's that the
Administration has been playing semantics with for some time is
now a very destabilizing factor.

It aggravates an already spiraling arms buildup throughout Asia
at a time when all the regions' countries could be better served by
economic and social development to undergrid their liberalizations.

Worse yet, it encourages China to continue with its nuclear,
chemical and biological programs and with trade from Pakistan
across to Iran.

So, we see a pattern emerging of weakened U.S. resolve, weak-
ened U.S. will on curbing proliferation and dampening regional
conflict and in increasingly well armed and adventurous China.
This is a combination for disaster in the world's most populous and
most nuclear ringed region.



Having set this in context, let me just make a comment about
China to which I would like all of you to respond and respond par-
ticularly if you would with a mind toward India, our newest strate-
gic ally in the region, on whose stability and security is critical to
the United States and to the prospects for the region.

Among the issues of concern for India and for stability in the re-
gion are the double digit increase in the PRC military budget for
the past 5 years, aggressive acquisition of weapons systems and
platforms such as the SU-27 fighter planes and kilo class sub-
marines from the former Soviet Union, increased signs of regional
aggressiveness and continued development of a strategic nuclear
and other weapons of mass destruction programs, specifically viola-
tions of the nuclear test ban treaty and development of a road mo-
bile ICBM.

A rapid growth of Chinese intelligence operations and capabili-
ties, long ignored or downplayed in the west, China's successful
test explosion of a neutron bomb, continued supply of nuclear mate-
rials and technology to Pakistan and last the transit of nearly half
of U.S. -bound heroin from Burma through southern China, with of-
ficial connivance.

These are just a few examples of concern we have with China.
If we have them, what do you think ought to be the level of concern
in India? India a democracy allied with the United States, sharing
a long border over which it has fought twice with China.

A country, which according to the State Department's global ter-
rorism review, for many years in a row has been the target of ter-
rorist attacks, based in and sponsored by its neighbors, who are
armed by China.

A country sharing a vital sea with China's nuclear submarines,
increasingly quiet ones as I understand, while India has none.

What is India to think and what would you suggest we tell the
Indians and others in the region, that we are willing to do to blunt
any potential danger now before it becomes more costly to do so
later, for them and for us?

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Royce appears in the appendix.]

Mr. Bereuter. I thank the gentleman.

Are there further members who wish to be recognized? I will
turn to the Democratic side first. Mr. Ackerman.

Mr. Ackerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am very pleased that the subcommittee is focusing on the secu-
rity question in South Asia and I want to thank you for assembling
such a distinguished group of panelists to help us in our delibera-
tions today.

The prevention of nuclear and ballistic missile proliferation,
along with the reduction in regional tensions that could trigger the
use of such weapons, is and should be at the top of the list of U.S.
objectives in South Asia.

Recently however, as you well know, Congress took what a great
many members consider the ill-advised step of suspending the
Pressler Amendment and allowing the delivery of $368,000,000 in
military equipment that was in the so-called pipeline before the Oc-
tober, 1990 cutoff of aid and arms transfers to Pakistan.



I believe that this transfer will only serve to further heighten
tensions in a region that often flirts with conflict.

In this regard, I note with some dismay a recent article in the
Washington Post by one of today's witnesses, Michael Krepon, that
cites the breakdown of confidence building measures, such as regu-
lar meetings of local military commanders along the Kashmiri bor-
der that no longer take place.

Transferring arms to a region where the most basic communica-
tion between protagonists does not take place cannot be considered
anything but destabilizing.

Add to this reports that both India and Pakistan are backing
away from prior commitments to negotiate a comprehensive test
ban treaty, as well as a global ban on producing fissile material
and you have the makings of a real crisis.

I look forward today to our witnesses' testimony and to continu-
ing efforts to reduce the tensions in South Asia.

Thank you again for calling this hearing.

Mr. Bereuter. Thank you, Mr. Ackerman.

The gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. Rohrabacher. I will try to make this short, Mr. Chairman.

The ongoing arms race between India and Pakistan is a tragedy.
It is destabilizing to the world, but more importantly it is a tragedy
for the people of India and Pakistan themselves.

The people of India and Pakistan do not need an arms race to
waste limited resources. Their people need those resources for
other things and the leadership in both of those countries should
be ashamed of themselves that they are wasting so much money,
when their people need education and other infrastructure and
wasting it on weapons to kill each other.

I will say that I have tried to study the area. I think the underly-
ing cause for the tension between India and Pakistan remains the
fact that India has been unwilling to have a free election and let
the Kashmiri people make the determination as to what country
they want to belong to, which has been going on for four decades.

I would hope that this conflict between India and Pakistan can
be put behind them and that they can become friends, realizing
that they both have a lot of work to do to build better lives for their
people, but that starts with a recognition of fundamental human
rights, which is people in Kashmir should have a right to vote to
control their own destiny, as they were promised four decades ago.

The violation of their human rights is what causes major prob-
lems and last but not least, in China, where we see the violation
of human rights, that too has a spillover, because we see a more
belligerent China.

A China governed by people, who again want to spend their
money on weapons, rather than building the better standard of liv-
ing for their own people.

Again, by standing for human rights, freedom and liberty and de-
mocracy, as we did in the markup prior to this hearing, I think


1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Online LibraryUnited States. Congress. House. Committee on InterU.S. interests in South Asia : hearings before the Subcommittees on International Economic Policy and Trade and Asia and the Pacific of the Committee on International Relations, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourth Congress, first and second session, December 5, 1995 and April 18, 1996 → online text (page 1 of 19)